PhædrusR
Check out your baskets
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2023
- Messages
- 1,148
Over on the Ideal World Random Musings thread, my indication of my support for removing the universal payment of the Winter Fuel Payment to all Pensioners caused a stir.
Plenty of misinterpretation and false accusations.
For the record, I agree with removing the WFP (£300) payment to ALL Pensioners. And to paying it to those who need it.
My only point is that the WFP is being paid to all pensioners. Irrespective of their income. Many of whom or indeed the majority of whom, do not need it and just put it in their bank or towards a holiday or for the kids/grandkids.
The stats indicate 21% of Pensioners are millionaire asset households and 50% of the rest are 'wealthy enough'
So perhaps maybe 25% are at lower income level where WFP is needed or useful. Question is above what income level should it not be paid?
I am not saying we should not pay the WFP to those who need it.
The question is where you set the threshold for payment if not universally paid to all Pensioners.
This is therefore, means-testing.
I do not know enough about what level of income is the correct threshold, currently the Pension Credit income level (£11,344 p/a) has been set.
The Government has chosen to use the Pension Credit income threshold as the cutoff point, the same as the free TV licence entitlement.
I suspect this is because it is simple to implement quickly in DWP, this year, basically, 2 extra lines of computer code as processing:
IF ON Pension Credit THEN Pay WFP
ELSE do Not
There is a debate over the level of income threshold that requires WFP and whether the Labour Gov should have done an impact assessment to see how the WFP change affects low income pensioners and what level it should be set.
My suggestion is not to pay to any Pensioner paying basic rate tax and above, £12,571. If you're earning enough to pay income tax, you can afford the loss of the £300 WFP. Or is that naive?
What level should the threshold be?
I fail to see how this is a controversial view.
More controversial seems to be my statement that we are supposed to work, plan for our future retirement, save money and pay for our future bills, if we can. The government provides a basic state pension and an additional earnings related pension scheme, and there are private pension schemes with tax incentives.
We wait to see any Budget changes to this and other taxes.
Those who say tax the rich may get their wish if traditional Labour take hold. CGF, IHT, private schools/health, etc.
The annual deficit is £120bn.
The national debt is £2.7 Trillion (2,700 billion)
The annual interest on the debt is £102bn.
Is cutting WFP harmful to low income pensioners above the threshold cut-off and pointless given these numbers. Those who criticise me seem to think so.
Plenty of misinterpretation and false accusations.
For the record, I agree with removing the WFP (£300) payment to ALL Pensioners. And to paying it to those who need it.
My only point is that the WFP is being paid to all pensioners. Irrespective of their income. Many of whom or indeed the majority of whom, do not need it and just put it in their bank or towards a holiday or for the kids/grandkids.
The stats indicate 21% of Pensioners are millionaire asset households and 50% of the rest are 'wealthy enough'
So perhaps maybe 25% are at lower income level where WFP is needed or useful. Question is above what income level should it not be paid?
I am not saying we should not pay the WFP to those who need it.
The question is where you set the threshold for payment if not universally paid to all Pensioners.
This is therefore, means-testing.
I do not know enough about what level of income is the correct threshold, currently the Pension Credit income level (£11,344 p/a) has been set.
The Government has chosen to use the Pension Credit income threshold as the cutoff point, the same as the free TV licence entitlement.
I suspect this is because it is simple to implement quickly in DWP, this year, basically, 2 extra lines of computer code as processing:
IF ON Pension Credit THEN Pay WFP
ELSE do Not
There is a debate over the level of income threshold that requires WFP and whether the Labour Gov should have done an impact assessment to see how the WFP change affects low income pensioners and what level it should be set.
My suggestion is not to pay to any Pensioner paying basic rate tax and above, £12,571. If you're earning enough to pay income tax, you can afford the loss of the £300 WFP. Or is that naive?
What level should the threshold be?
I fail to see how this is a controversial view.
More controversial seems to be my statement that we are supposed to work, plan for our future retirement, save money and pay for our future bills, if we can. The government provides a basic state pension and an additional earnings related pension scheme, and there are private pension schemes with tax incentives.
We wait to see any Budget changes to this and other taxes.
Those who say tax the rich may get their wish if traditional Labour take hold. CGF, IHT, private schools/health, etc.
The annual deficit is £120bn.
The national debt is £2.7 Trillion (2,700 billion)
The annual interest on the debt is £102bn.
Is cutting WFP harmful to low income pensioners above the threshold cut-off and pointless given these numbers. Those who criticise me seem to think so.
